182 Dr. R. Wight on the Laurus Cassia of Linnceus, 



begins his description oi Laurus Cassia^ by stating that he 

 at first considered it a variety of the antecedent (cinnamon) ; 

 but now that he knows not by what mark to distinguish it from 

 * camphorifera Japonensium^ for the leaves are thinner than 

 those of cinnamon, the nerves uniting above the base as in 

 camphorifera, and are sprinkled beneath with a greyish dew 

 (subtus rore ccesio illinita) as in the camphor tree, and are at 

 the same time lanceolate and of a thinner texture than the pre- 

 ceding (cinnamon). The whole of his description in short 

 agrees most exactly with Mr. MarshalPs description of the 

 Cingalese Dawalkurundu, and leaves not a doubt that both 

 had the same plant in view, and consequently that Mr. Mar- 

 shall is so far correct in saying that the bark of the Laurus 

 Cassia of Linnaeus possessed none of the qualities attributed 

 to it. So far all is clear ; but now the chapter of errors begins. 

 Had Linnaeus been permitted to exercise his own unbiassed 

 judgement in this case, it is not improbable he would have 

 avoided the error of assigning to a plant which, with all his 

 acuteness, he knew not how to distinguish from the camphor 

 tree, the credit of producing Cassia, or at all events would not 

 have done so without some expression of doubt, so as still to 

 leave the question an open one. But, upon consulting other 

 authorities, he found in Burman's ^ Thesaurus Zeylanicus^ the 

 figure of a species of Cinnamomuni or Laurus as he called the 

 genus, to which Burman had given the name of Cinnamomum 

 perpetuo florens, Sec, and assigned the native name of Dawed- 

 kurundu, not as it appears from the specimen itself having 

 been so named, but because being different from the true cin- 

 namon of which he had seen specimens and figures, he thought 

 it an inferior, wild or jungle sort, which must of necessity be 

 the plant that Herman had described in his ^ Musaeum Zey- 

 lanicum,^ though the inflorescence differed much from the 

 description, (a very essential point, which Burman remarked 

 and endeavours to explain away,) and therefore gave it the 



• " Hanc speciem olim pro antecedentis varietate habui, nunc vero, qua 

 nota banc a caw/^/iori/era J aponensium distinguam, non novi; Folia enim 

 Cinnamomo temiiora, nervis ante basin coeuntibus nt in camphorifera ; sub- 

 tus lore caesio illinita, utCamphora, et simul lanceolata ac tenuiori substantia 

 quam praecedentis." — Linn. Flor. Zeylanica, p. Q2^ 



